Thread Tools

We live in a 'free society' that is based on votes. You cast yours as you see fit, and I'll cast mine.

Click to expand...

Great. When the majority decides that you can't own guns then I guess you'll just accept that their opinion is valid and cheerfully give them up.

Some things shouldn't be voted on because they are inherent rights. It's only when you can show clear and definite harm to the society as a whole that any activity should be prohibited. You don't want freedom for all, only for those that you agree with. Ironic (not to mention hypocritical) that this is the same mindset that says women should never been allowed to vote because they base decisions on emotion rather than logic.

We live in a 'free society' that is based on votes. You cast yours as you see fit, and I'll cast mine.

Click to expand...

Wrong again. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. What that means is that certain things are not subject to popular vote. Freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms and peaceably assemble are all examples of individual liberties that can't simply be voted away (at least not legally). The right to marry whoever you choose (pursuit of happiness) is another example.

Wrong again. We don't live in a democracy, we live in a democratic republic. What that means is that certain things are not subject to popular vote. Freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms and peaceably assemble are all examples of individual liberties that can't simply be voted away (at least not legally). The right to marry whoever you choose (pursuit of happiness) is another example.

Click to expand...

The point is you have the freedom to vote for the person that is most aligned with your values. To clarify I don't have issues with those who are openly gay. I do disagree with marriage though.

I can vote for a candidate that supports gun control. He can push through a law prohibiting firearms ownership. The courts then strike it down as they never had the constitutional authority to enact such a law in the first place.

You are the king of bad analogies. Murder is an attack with an unwilling victim. It is not the same thing as two adults loving in the way that comes naturally to them. That you would equate the two makes you a slobbering bigoted monster.

It's none of your business. If we break a law we will be dealt with. But come what may... It absolutely doesn't concern you. Keep your bigoted nose out of other people's lives.

They aren't defending anyone. Just pointing out how utterly stupid you are.

Click to expand...

It has to affect your "chick's" daughter. Don't you see that? If if doesn't concern me, why did you respond to a post by me with this information................very disturbing.

I can vote for a candidate that supports gun control. He can push through a law prohibiting firearms ownership. The courts then strike it down as they never had the constitutional authority to enact such a law in the first place.

Click to expand...

At this point your arguing for the sake of it. Agreed we don't always get what we want, but I'm all ears.if you have a solution for implementing a new system. Your system sounds like it would likely support your views however, and to that point it would be no better than what we have now or another system which you force your views on others. The argument can be made both ways. So in one post you talk about individual liberties, and the in another you complain.about that system. So are you or are you not satisfied with our governmental process? I think we can agree its not perfect, and not.every single person can be pleased. This is where I again say lets agree to disagree and stop making arguement for.the sake of it.

certain things are not subject to popular vote. Freedom of speech, press, religion, the right to bear arms and peaceably assemble are all examples of individual liberties that can't simply be voted away (at least not legally). The right to marry whoever you choose (pursuit of happiness) is another example.

Click to expand...

Homosexuals are free to get married the same as heteros are. All they have to do is find a willing member of the opposite sex.

What you're talking about is changing the age-old definition of marriage. If we let libs get away with changing word definitions all the time to bolster whatever their current craze may be, we'll have anarchy. But that's what cultural-Marxist desinforatsiya-artists want, isn't it? Sow confusion, promote unhealthy lifestyles to weaken and kill, wreak destruction in free society so that totalitarian elements can take over.

Your system sounds like it would likely support your views however, and to that point it would be no better than what we have now or another system which you force your views on others. The argument can be made both ways. So in one post you talk about individual liberties, and the in another you complain.about that system.

Click to expand...

False Equivalence.

No, our positions are not the same at all. Your position is that other people should not be able to do what they want even though it doesn't effect you at all. My position is to stop you from being able to implement your position on others. You can do whatever you want with your own life as long as it does not affect others. We should all have that sort of liberty. I'm in favor of letting everyone have exactly that. You are opposed to it.

What you're talking about is changing the age-old definition of marriage. If we let libs get away with changing word definitions all the time to bolster whatever their current craze may be, we'll have anarchy. But that's what cultural-Marxist desinforatsiya-artists want, isn't it? Sow confusion, promote unhealthy lifestyles to weaken and kill, wreak destruction in free society so that totalitarian elements can take over.

Click to expand...

You have become your own worst enemy. You can't identify a direct victim if homosexual marriage were legalized therefore you make a generic plea against "anarchy" and how it would be bad for "society" as a whole. That is the very definition of a socialist argument (arguing based on what you perceive as best for soceity in general). You are not on the side of individual liberty on this issue.

Great. When the majority decides that you can't own guns then I guess you'll just accept that their opinion is valid and cheerfully give them up.

Some things shouldn't be voted on because they are inherent rights. It's only when you can show clear and definite harm to the society as a whole that any activity should be prohibited. You don't want freedom for all, only for those that you agree with. Ironic (not to mention hypocritical) that this is the same mindset that says women should never been allowed to vote because they base decisions on emotion rather than logic.

Click to expand...

The points your putting forth have nothing to do with the discussion on homosexualality. I believe in equal right for men and women, and that's an entirely different topic so lets stay focused here. Regarding gun control; we have the right to.bear arms from a tyrannical government. If that right is talent away then do something about it. That's why you and I have the right. The 2nd amendment wasn't.written for.hobbyist and hunters. Again this is entirely a.different topic. Lets stay on point, but really I have said many times.the same points over and over. The only arguments that you have put for are nit picking for the sake of arguement.We disagree, leave it at that. Nothing you say will change my position.

If rather than "no comment" you had "none of the above" then it would have been appropriate, but I imagine for many people none of the options were valid. "No comment" is also not an appropriate answer because I have a comment, but you are trying to silence it. The correct answer would be Geko's (D).

Could you please answer the following...
When did you stop beating your wife?
(a) Years ago?
(b) Months ago?
(c) Days ago?
(d) No comment?

Any answer other than a, b or c (including silence) will be interpreted as "no comment".

If rather than "no comment" you had "none of the above" then it would have been appropriate, but I imagine for many people none of the options were valid. "No comment" is also not an appropriate answer because I have a comment, but you are trying to silence it. The correct answer would be Geko's (D).

Could you please answer the following...
When did you stop beating your wife?
(a) Years ago?
(b) Months ago?
(c) Days ago?
(d) No comment?

Any answer other than a, b or c (including silence) will be interpreted as "no comment".

-ArtificialGrape

Click to expand...

So your answer is "D". But I enjoyed the pointless diatribe, lol . No other participants?

Glock Talk is the #1 site to discuss the world’s most popular pistol, chat about firearms, accessories and more. As our membership continues to grow we look forward to reading your stories and learning from your experiences. Membership is free and we welcome all types of shooters, whether you're a novice or a pro. Come for the info, stay and make some friends..